Its the only amendment that acknowledges that the government should regulate things. "A well regulated militia...."

I regulate my militia very well.

__________________
The United States of Indentured Servants

You are applying a modern definition to the lexicon of the founders and changing the meaning of the term.

"Well regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment is an accolade describing the character of a specific corps. "Well regulated" means properly functioning or in operational order and condition. It merely describes their efficiency and expertness in executing military exercises.

As nonsensical as it may sound to you with your limited understanding, "regulations" issued by a legislative body can not make the militia actually be, "well regulated."

Try again . . .

+1



Epic amounts of fail.

I believe the following is more in line with what the founding fathers had in mind:


1 a: to govern or direct according to rule b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2): to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>

Before I begin let me state that I am not arguing that "regulations" can not be written for the militia; there are plenty of constitutional supports for the authority of Congress and to a very limited degree, the states, to write and enforce militia "regulations." My argument is that the use of the term "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with legislative "regulations" and no reading of the "declaratory clause" of the Amendment imparts conditions, qualifications or restrictions on the citizen's right to arms merely recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.

Uhhh, then you are profoundly incorrect also.

Are you just working with incomplete information or are you purposefully attempting to deceive?

If you yourself have researched this using a comprehensive dictionary that would represent usage contemporaneous with the debate and ratification of the 2nd Amendment, (why would you use one that didn't), you would know that "regulated" has more definitions than those you have offered.

Granted, the definition of the word as used in the 2nd Amendment describing militia / military corps, is considered obsolete now but it was certainly in common use and enjoyed a common understanding in the Revolutionary period through the first half of the 19th century.

Once we agree that "regulated" has a specific and differentiated meaning when used to describe the condition of military corps, we can examine contemporaneous usage examples and apply critical thinking skills tempered with intellectual honesty, not adherence to political ideology and pursuit of a political agenda.

The Oxford English Dictionary shows "regulated" has an obsolete definition specifically applied to military affairs:

Of troops: Properly disciplined.

And then "discipline" has an obsolete definition again applying specifically to military affairs:

Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war.

So, "well regulated," as used in the 2nd Amendment, only means, properly trained, displaying sufficient expertness in military exercise. That definition, not surprisingly, places "well regulated" as an antonym of "ill-regulated;" a term which has been unwaveringly used for centuries to describe sub-standard condition of troops, but is presently not being reconstructed for political advantage.

The most important example of contemporaneous usage of "well regulated" for defining the term is found in The Federalist 29, written by Hamilton and focusing on all the militia, organized and unorganized.

This excerpt speaks directly to the concept of "well-regulated militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment and what that designation means and what the repercussions would be of a demand that "all the militia" actually be, "well regulated." (paragraph breaks added)

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.

To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

The Federalist 29

Let's scrutinize this from top to bottom . . .

From the start it is clear that "the project of disciplining" has more to do with -practice makes perfect- than -Congress shall have the power to regulate- . "Expertness in movements" is not something the militia can achieve by having a "regulation" sent from Washington DC, read to them.

The "yeomanry" were the landholders, presumably farmers, who would be taken from their essential work for such intensive training. Hamilton recognizes that cooperation from all the citizens for such a training regimen could only be achieved through an unacceptable mandate from government, ("To oblige the great body").

The adding of, "and of the other classes of citizens" is interesting as well. With the founder's distaste for the "regulations" of the crown and the citizenry being familiar with them, this statement stands as a direct refutation and condemnation of the exclusions outlined in English common law and their bill of rights on the citizen bearing arms. That general inclusion, -of every class of citizen-, without regard for land ownership, religion or title told the people that no exclusions or qualifications attached to a citizen's status were to be enacted or inferred by the proposed constitution.

And for this discussion, it is plainly clear that the term "well regulated," as used to describe militia, does not infer being constrained by legal act by a legislative body. "Well regulated" is merely an accolade; it describes a quality; ("the character of") the unit and the men.

That description is earned. It is earned only after demonstrating expertness in military readiness and order ("acquire the degree of perfection"). It is a description that is bestowed ("entitle them to"), it certainly is not describing the simple, legally constrained condition of simply being under regulations that is often claimed.

After exploring and explaining the futility of any requirement that the "whole nation" actually perform as a "well regulated" militia, Hamilton resigns himself to the only legitimate level of obligation the government could enforce upon the citizens; "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped" and muster them on occasion to inspect their guns.

I have other excerpts and arguments but I'm not going to waste my time composing a more comprehensive post if you are just going to be a typical hit-n-run anti (like the OP who has abandoned this thread but has since posted 38 times elsewhere on AWE ) . . .

If you have any legal, linguistic or historical evidence to support your position I would be thrilled to read it.

If you have a particular logical analysis of the above excerpt from the Federalist or any other contemporaneous usage of the term "well regulated" that disagrees with my analysis I would be thrilled to read it.

This thing is sweet!

Those that want their rights protected under the Second Amendment will soon find themselves the more "well regulated."

Howzat?

The only thing that is necessary from Heller is to have the question at issue answered in the affirmative.

Since the mass of highly contested federal gun control is propped up by the unsupportable Tot decision and its illegitimate spawn, a definitive opinion as to the individual nature of the right to arms will be enough to begin the avalanche of challenges in the Circuits and even in the state courts (in those states that have relied on the federal "collective" opinion to buttress their unconstitutional gun laws, i.e., New Jersey).

I would welcome a more illuminating explanation of your position and/or an actual "on point" rebuttal of any of my statements.

Whatever rights that may be protected under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, they are nevertheless subject to both state and federal law regulating the possession, transportation, sale and use of firearms; which is to say that such rights are not unlimited, much less absolute - as the Supreme Court will make clear.